In September 2022, Ethereum founder Vitalik Buterin issued Soulbound Tokens (SBT) to the donors of his new book Proof of Stake, a practice after he co-published a paper titled Decentralized Society: Finding Web3’s Soul with a peer author in May. As a concept from the game World of Warcraft, SBT has unlocked new application scenarios for tokens in Web3 and brought new ideas to SocialFi. In a nutshell, SBTs are non-transferable tokens, a feature that makes them reliable reputation data, such as contributions, skills, and credentials.
Reputation is one of the key components of Web3 identity. Today, we will cover the concept and importance of reputation systems, the status quo of Web3 reputation systems, the challenges they face, and the future trend of the sector. In that process, we may praise or criticize some projects, but our views should not be relied on as investment advice. In addition, this article may also contain misunderstandings due to our lack of profound expertise. We will not differentiate reputation from credentials in great detail, though the former covers a wider range.
What are reputation systems?
1. The history of reputation
The concept of reputation has existed since ancient times. Back then, the royal family awarded medals or similar items (such as the ‘death-exemption plate’ in ancient China) to outstanding ministers and generals. Today, badges are awarded by the government or international organizations to individuals or groups to recognize the recipients’ contributions to society, nations, countries, and mankind. In the workplace, some companies practice a rank or title system to indicate the rank of employees in the corporate hierarchy and determine their salaries and benefits. To obtain certificates (such as CFA and ACCA in finance) as credentials of professional competency, professionals also participate in training and examinations organized by authoritative organizations or associations in their respective fields. In the lending market, institutions issue a credit report for the borrower based on his current asset scale, historical lending behaviors, and past cash flows, and this report can be used as a borrowing credential in the credit market.
The reputation system of North Korean generals (source: focuswashington.com)
With the advent of personal computers and the Internet, reputation systems have become more diversified in terms of their design and application. In online games, players log in, play the game, and complete special tasks to earn more points, which function partially the same as in-game tokens bought with cash and can be used to purchase characters, skins, and items. On e-commerce platforms, users sign up and shop for goods to upgrade their account level for more benefits, such as coupons and gifts. On some platforms, getting a high account level even helps users get larger consumer loans.
In Web3, where the interconnection of value is emphasized, reputation is indispensable. The on-chain behaviors of each wallet address constitute a major component of its on-chain reputation. These on-chain operations include but are not limited to transfers, transactions, and dApp interactions, including the provision of liquidity, on-chain voting, clearing and settlement, etc. Addresses that have taken certain on-chain actions may get project tokens and NFT airdrops or enjoy priority access to early-stage testing programs and purchasing whitelist qualifications.
To sum up, the development of reputation can be divided into three stages:
l Reputation 1.0 refers to the reputation of individuals or institutions in the physical world. Depending on the authority and influence of the issuer, such reputation may have global, continental, and national impact or only industrial and corporate influence.
l Reputation 2.0 refers to the reputation of online accounts. Such reputation systems, designed by platforms, are mainly based on user behaviors and may also account for users’ real-world identities. Generally speaking, platform-based reputation systems are isolated and non-interoperable because data sovereignty does not belong to users and users cannot bring their data from one platform to another. That said, some well-established social media platforms and online gaming platforms provide public data APIs that allow third-party platforms to access certain user data through authorization.
l Reputation 3.0 refers to the reputation of an independent wallet address or DID (Decentralized Identity), the latter of which can be bound with multiple wallets and SNS accounts on multiple chains. Overall, reputation 3.0 remains in its infancy, and projects are still exploring PMF and creating user demands, without knowing where they are headed eventually. Only one thing is for sure: the major theme of reputation 3.0 is that users will own their data, and reputation credentials, as well as their value, can be moved across applications on different networks.
2.The functions of reputation in Web3
As mentioned above, reputation systems are essential to Web3 and are the key to fostering the flywheel effect of Web3. They are critical to both Web3 projects and Web3 citizens for two reasons:
On the one hand, reputation helps projects achieve user growth and allows Web3 citizens to acquire accurate content. With a reputation system, new platforms can identify potential users with improved speed and accuracy. This makes it easier to convert them into loyal users through incentives and helps such platforms engage more users with content creation, DeFi interaction, NFT collection, GameFi gameplay, etc. On the other hand, facing a large swath of new Web3 applications, Web3 users get distracted and found themselves lost in the explosion of information. Despite that, they can build reputation or credentials with past behaviors to express their preferences and obtain the preferred content using a reputation system and big data analysis.
Furthermore, reputation systems match employers with job seekers. To grow large, the Web3 ecosystem needs not only users but also other value creators, such as developers, marketing staff, content creators, and administrators. Normally, project teams prefer enthusiastic “employees” with Web3 experience. In this regard, having a wallet with frequent on-chain operations is the best proof of enthusiasm. By the same token, for Web3 job seekers, a Web3 resume consisting of on-chain reputations or credentials can be a strong, verifiable stepping stone. Specifically, achievements in blockchain games help job hunters join game guilds; users who frequently use a DeFi protocol are more important than token holders in terms of protocol governance; users actively promoting a project on social media are more likely to get airdrop tokens.
Reputation is of great potential for both project teams and users. When talking about reputation systems in an article, a16z said:
“Reputation tokens on digital platforms typically serve two purposes:
To identify and reward the users who have contributed value to the platform - a form of signaling, which those users can parlay into public reputation. To provide a form of compensation that enables contributors to liquefy some of the value they have created into an exchangeable currency.”
In our view, in traditional finance, individual wealth equals financial capital plus human capital; in the Web3 world, DID wealth equals crypto asset plus reputation. As Web3 applications become more diversified and the economic models mature over time, people will be able to profit from Web3 in ways other than investing. Instead, users will benefit from more ‘X-to-Earn’ approaches, and the reputation they built will be translated into DID crypto assets. In other words, you will be able to monetize your reputation.
The status quo of Web3 reputation systems
The following paragraphs will discuss the current development of Web3 reputation systems concerning ecosystem, economics, and technology. In short, although the relevant theories abound, Web3 reputation systems remain in their infancy in terms of practical operation.
1. The ecosystem of Web3 reputation systems
Web3 reputation systems are based on an all-inclusive ecosystem, covering infrastructure, Web2 applications providing data sources, and Web3 applications based on different reputation systems.
1.1 Infrastructure
Web3 reputation systems rely on two types of infrastructures: 1) data storage solutions and 2) real-person verification.
l Data storage solutions
Normally, centralized storage (e.g. Amazon S3) or decentralized storage (e.g. Filecoin/IPFS and Arweave) can both be used to store reputation data, whether it is raw data or processed data. However, based on characteristics such as privacy protection and the dynamic changes in social networking data, reputation data requires a decentralized and efficient solution for storing dynamic data.
Ceramic meets all these requirements. Right now, the Ceramic ecosystem covers social networking projects that focus on reputation, social graphs, and user-generated content. This storage solution emphasizes data composability. With Ceramic’s permissionless data streaming network, users can store streams of information and ever-changing files directly on the decentralized web. To be more specific, on Ceramic, each piece of information is represented as an append-only log of commits (log files in a computer that record the operations of a program), called a Stream (similar to the open-source distributed version control system Git). Even if the content stored changes, the StreamID will not be modified, which makes it convenient to store the modified version or the previous version of content without frequently changing the hash value. Compared with IPFS, which requires users to manually synchronize the hash-log on Git, Ceramic is more convenient for storing dynamic data.
l Real-person verification
As Web3 users can create multiple anonymous wallets, Web3 applications are vulnerable to Sybil attacks. For instance, a user can use multiple wallets to interact with projects to issue native tokens through scripts to get a large number of airdrops. Users can also create multiple wallets to enhance their voting power and influence the voting results. To prevent Sybil attacks, some Web3 dApps are improving their security by using human-proof or proof-of-personality systems that ask users to prove that they are real human beings rather than robots. BrightID, a project working with Gitcoin Passport, and Proof-of-Humanity are two projects that prevent Sybil attacks during events such as airdrops, governance, and whitelisting through real-person verification.
BrightID is a social identity network that allows users to prove that they are only using one account. Users can join a verification party (a basic step) and Bitu for verification. Right now, BrightID provides online camera verification meetings available in Chinese, English, Spanish, Russian, and Indonesian almost every day, and users can choose to join a meeting according to their schedule and preferred language. During the process, the user needs to scan the QR code provided by Bright ID and open their camera video to show their full face, and the verification officer will name the users one by one and engage in simple communication. Bitu is a more advanced verification method featuring three levels of connection that show how well a person knows the others they make connections with: already known, just met, and suspicious. Bitu assigns a score to users that increases by one every time they make an “Already known” connection to friends or family who are verified in Bitu. Users will get five negative points when they make “Already known” connections to strangers. Based on such mechanisms, DApps can use the Bitu score as a requirement for participating in their events.
Proof of Humanity is a system combining webs of trust with reverse Turing tests and dispute resolution to create a Sybil-proof list of humans. With Proof of Humanity, users only need to go through two steps to prove that the account is not run by a bot. Step one, users will need to create and register a resume by providing the following information: wallet address (original address or a new Tonardo.Cash address, as recommended by the project team), nickname and name, personal profile, profile photo, and a short video of about 2 minutes. Users also have to pay 0.125ETH by themselves or through crowdfunding as the credit deposit, which will be refunded upon successful registration; otherwise, the deposit will be deducted. Step two, users should get verified and guaranteed by others. Registered users can choose to review the users who applied for registration and provide an applicant with a guarantee to prove that the address holder is a real human being and that the person has not registered other addresses if they believe the applicant to be eligible. Conversely, registered users may also challenge an applicant if they find him ineligible, and such decisions will be resolved under an ERC792 dispute resolution system such as Kleros.
1.2 Web2 applications providing data sources
The sources of reputation data are available both on-chain and off-chain. As mentioned above, off-chain data now mainly comes from social networking sites and the Web2 applications of online games with mature public APIs.
Social media applications mainly include social platforms that Web3 users often use, including Twitter, Discord, Telegram, and Github. Once an address is bound to an SNS account, the off-chain behaviors of that address will be available on the chain. Data that include the number of followers/fans of an SNS account, the social relations reflected by mutual followings, the type of content followed, and the type of content created are all references that can be used to build the account’s reputation or credentials.
In games such as Dota2, Minecraft, and World of Warcraft, if users are willing to authorize reputation applications to access their data on these game platforms, they could build a game resume to get airdrops and early testing opportunities from game projects.
1.3 Application of Web3 reputation systems
Although Web3 reputation systems are just getting started and are merely a small branch of the Web3 world, the category holds the key to entering the Web3 world in the future. In this field, projects are competitive fiercely, especially in terms of core positioning, reputation expression, and reputation criteria.
With respect to positioning, projects emphasize different functions. For instance, DappBack, Rabbithole, and Quest3 highlight the task platform attribute, and users need to complete tasks requested by business projects within the specified time in order to obtain the reputation credential; Coordinape and Karma serve DAOs and evaluate the contributions of DAO members; Orange, Port3, and Glaxe (formerly ProjectGalaxy) focus more on the concept of Oracle or data infrastructure and aim to create an open, collaborative reputation/credential data network; FirstBatch and Sismos prioritize modularization and provide businesses with APIs for calling data that offer versatile functions; ARCx and Lysto, focused on more specific functions, target credit loans, and vertical game fields, respectively.
The expressions of reputation are also diversified. Model-calculated scoring is the first type of reputation expression. For instance, on ARCx, a user’s credit score ranges from 0 to 999; Degen calculates the Degen score based on the on-chain behavior of the user’s wallet address in fields that include DeFi and NFTs; Karma allows DAOs to use custom models to determine the Karma score of their members, which reflects individual contribution. Points on the Web2 platform represent the second type of reputation expression. This includes Coordinape’s GIVE, Dappback’s Rewards, and Quest’s RP. Such points are used to represent the rate of return, obtain NFT rewards, or unlock more rights. On-chain Verifiable Credentials presented in form of texts are the third type of reputation expression. They are supported by Glaxe and Orange Protocol. Finally, many projects adopt NFTs to express a user’s reputation. These NFTs might be called badges or OATs (On-chain Achievement Tokens), and some projects may also adopt technical standards such as ERC4973, ERC5114, and ERC721S to enable the non-transferability, transaction, and burning of NFTs after they are minted.
The level of diversification concerning the data sources for reputation assessment varies. Most projects account for both on-chain and off-chain data, the latter of which includes both online and offline statistics. Projects encourage users to connect to wallets and authorize access to SNS accounts through task incentives. They continue to improve the Web3 user profile based on their historical behaviors (both on-chain and off-chain), as well as how they completed the relevant tasks within a limited period of time.
In the following paragraphs, we will dive into several reputation systems following the theme of vertical projects (Reputation systems embedded in Web3 dApps or the internal system of DAOs will be omitted). Overall, most projects remain in the stage of development and internal testing. By launching certain functions and reaching out to individual users, they have acquired massive reference data and kept adjusting their Product Market Fit (PMF). That said, there is no mature and fully-functioning Web3 reputation system out there.
2. The economics of reputation
The design of a reputation system, whether it is reputation 1.0, 2.0, or 3.0, hinges on two key factors: 1) how the target individuals or groups are identified, and 2) how reputation holders are incentivized. Regarding the identification of target individuals or groups, apart from eligibility, the total supply of reputation, the issuance amount at each stage, and the fairness of distribution should all be considered. Though a system can choose to issue an unlimited amount of reputation credentials, a certain level of rarity makes them more valuable. In addition, participants in an ecosystem will only recognize the reputation it issued if the distribution is fair. As for incentives, reputation holders will only continue to create and contribute if they are provided with a sense of honor, material rewards, or potential benefits.
From the above, we can tell that the design of a reputation system is all about economics. In Web3, where tokens are frequently used, some advocate that reputation systems should adopt the dual-token model. Under such an economic framework, one token acts as a signal and is created by the reputation issuer. Such tokens can either be FT or NFT but must be non-transferable. The other token functions as an incentive and can be created by the reputation issuer or a third party. These tokens can be traded for cash. The idea of adopting such a dual-token model is easily understandable: If a single reputation token can be transferred or sold, it loses its value as the signal; or, if a reputation system only adopts a single currency that cannot be sold, the token will be worthless both now and in the future. For example, Alice got reputation tokens offered to senior DeFi users because she has been trading frequently on multiple DeFi projects, and Bob has never used any DeFi project but purchased the tokens from Alice. In this case, it wouldn’t work if a new DeFi project, which wants to attract frequent users for testing, offers whitelist membership and rewards to the address holding the reputation tokens (Bob).
3. Technologies involved in the application of Web3 reputation systems
At the moment, most of the technologies used by Web3 reputation systems are existing blockchain technologies or mature Web2 technologies. The category features no apparent technological innovations. Rather, it focuses more on exploring how to combine and filter various technical standards.
3.1 Token standards
As we explained above, it is more reasonable that reputation tokens, which function as a signal, should be non-transferable. Given that many projects use ERC721-based NFTs as their reputation tokens, a convenient way to achieve such non-transferability is to delete the transfer function, thereby preventing users from selling, trading, or transferring the NFT credentials after they are minted. In addition, there are also many proposals for achieving non-transferability:
The above proposals are designed for NFTs (non-fungible tokens). However, apart from NFTs, reputation can also be expressed in points. As such, we also need a token standard that resembles ERC20 but offers new features that include non-transferable and revocable tokens. In addition, such a standard should also be able to interpret off-chain transaction records. The ERC3525 Semi-Fungible Token submitted by Solv Protocol in December 2021 might just be the solution we need.
Approved in early September, ERC3525 aims to create semi-fungible tokens that combine the quantitative ability of ERC20 with the descriptive ability of ERC721. More specifically, it adds a new parameter called Slot to express the concept of classification and a corresponding Slot Metadata to help realize its business-level class logic. Slot comes with a struct data structure. Compared with the simple data hashing of ERC721, it can record more contents, including the level, class, and even period of credit. Slot is more customizable and therefore leaves us more room for imagination.
Meanwhile, ERC3525 introduces the _value (quantitative attributes) of ERC20 while retaining the _tokenID (descriptive attributes) of ERC721, which addresses a major flaw of ERC721-based reputation tokens: they are not upgradeable. In reality, a user’s credit score or reputation changes over time; by changing the relevant figures, the project team could effectively update the user’s reputation status.
Another benefit of introducing _value & _tokenID is that they can be used to differentiate members. In the case of the reputation points of DAOs, at the basic protocol level, ERC20 cannot distinguish a member whose points became zero and a member who has never had points. As ERC3525-based tokens feature both _tokenID, which indicates ownership, and _value, which represents quantity, an address whose points are reduced to zero still owns the token (_tokenID), but its value (_value) is 0; an address that has never had reputation points doesn’t even own the reputation token (_tokenID). Therefore, the adoption of ERC3525 enables the identification of identity status by directly reading the on-chain data with smart contracts.
3.2 Privacy-preserving technologies
A well-established Web3 reputation system requires on-chain data, abundant Web2 data, and even the matching identity data of entities. Privacy protection is crucial, both ethically and personally. Zero-knowledge proof, one of the most trending privacy-preserving technologies in the industry, also has a place in reputation systems and is primarily used for Proof of Membership. Considering the obscure theories involved in zero-knowledge proofs, we will confine ourselves to the effect achieved using ZKPs and the brief process of how it is achieved.
Proof of Membership allows users to prove that they are eligible for a certain membership without revealing their identity. For example, holders of Bored Ape NFTs, influencers with over 10 million Twitter followers, or holders of accounting certificates can prove their eligibility without revealing their wallet address, Twitter account, or accounting certificate. Considering the complexity of ZKP technology, most projects use a code library when creating a general-purpose or customized reputation system, rather than building the codes from scratch.
Semaphore is an open-source library for creating identities and proving membership with zero knowledge. It offers general-purpose circuits for proving membership. Projects can use Semaphore to create off-chain or on-chain groups, each of which represents a set of user identities that fit certain characteristics. Groups are organized as Merkle trees, with ID Commitments being their leaves. To improve efficiency, projects often choose to store ID Commitments off-chain. With Semaphore, the process of information storage and zero-knowledge proof roughly looks like this: 1) The user creates an identity on the front end and proves his identity ownership (e.g. ECDSA signature from an Ethereum wallet or OAuth verification from a Twitter account); 2) the ID Commitment generated is moved off the blockchain; 3) the Prover (the user) obtains the commitment set by reading the off-chain storage and generating the Witness through the Merkle proof and identity information; 4) he then uses Groth16 to generate the zero-knowledge proof through the Witness.
Challenges facing Web3 reputation systems in making breakthroughs
As we discussed earlier, there is no iconic Web3 reputation system out there because, fundamentally, Web3 cities are just getting built. Reputation systems strive for clear goals and are powered by sufficient theories and technologies, yet the system lacks practical experiences and product adjustments at the moment. To sum up, we believe that Web3 reputation systems face three challenges: data collection, model design, and interoperability.
1. Data collection
Reputation data can be both on-chain and off-chain. It has been only less than a decade since blockchains started to develop rapidly. Despite that, public chains have already accumulated massive historical data, which contain increasingly versatile data implications. As such, although on-chain data is publicly available, its collection is both expensive (since cloud storage and computing resources are needed) and demanding. In addition, as most on-chain data is about financial behaviors centering on tokens or NFTs (transactions, staking, lending, etc.), it can only be applied to a limited range of reputations.
In other words, building a functioning Web3 reputation system requires more off-chain data, such as Web2, and even real-world information. To collect off-chain data in Web3, which emphasizes data sovereignty, projects face two challenges: 1) user consent and 2) permission from centralized organizations that controls the data. At the moment, only a few Web2 applications offer open APIs to external projects upon obtaining user authorization. That said, such permissions may be suspended at any moment, especially those granted to Web3 projects. Some reputation systems attempt to capture front-end data through web tools or browser extensions after getting consent from users. However, this approach will require long-term user education and habit training because individual users do not yet trust these tools and may not be willing to use them for privacy concerns; individual users, especially non-Web3 users, are not motivated to use such tools because they do not perceive their benefits (e.g. earning tokens, getting airdrops, and accurately obtaining interesting Web3 content). Reputation systems face an obvious Chicken-and-Egg problem.
2. Model design
Most existing Web3 reputations or credentials are extremely simple and are mostly used as proof for participating in a certain event. Such credentials may specify a user’s participation in a project’s AMA, his DeFi trading frequency, the cross-chain bridge he used, and a certain project on Twitter and Discord he followed… With such customized reputations, projects and DAOs cannot conduct any in-depth analysis of the holder’s behavioral characteristics, and it is impossible to directly identify the holder as a potential user, airdrop target, administrator, or marketing promoter.
Therefore, when designing a reputation system, be it qualitative or quantitative, project teams should account for more detailed considerations. For example, when identifying senior NFT holders, apart from the number of interactions between an address and OpenSea, projects should consider more factors, including: Does the user often discuss NFTs on social media? Ever he ever minted NFTs? Is he an early holder of multiple blue-chip NFTs? Did he engage in NFTFi such as NFT fragmentation and NFT lending? Moreover, when looking for professional DAO administrators, instead of just examining whether an address holds project tokens, projects should check the user’s enthusiasm for participating in proposals, the approval rate of proposals he raised, how this potential administrator is rated by the community members, and even the effect of historical proposals.
The detailed design of reputation systems demands the wisdom of experts in different domains and the professional know-how of data engineers, as well as more insightful credentials that help projects meet their goals. During this process, designers also have to conduct advanced computation on all relevant data and regularly adjust the equations or algorithms according to the effect achieved. It will take a long time for Web3, which suffers from a serious lack of talent, to solve this problem.
3. Interoperability
At the moment, Web3 reputation systems face two major challenges in achieving interoperability: 1) consensus and 2) openness. With respect to the former, participants in the Web3 ecosystem do not agree on various reputations or credentials. As the industry remains in its infancy, there are no authoritative credentials that could serve as a reference for all reputation systems or systems in certain segments. For example, in the real world, financial institutions require their candidates to hold accounting certificates, such as CFA, CPA, ACCA, or FRM. In the Web3 world, however, there is no DeFi reputation that everyone accepts. This is the case because, in addition to the lack of insightful reputations and the inability to build a consensus, many projects wish to build their own reputation systems. Even in Web3, which advocates “collaboration”, there are still ambitious teams that strive to become the authority on reputation. After all, no one knows who will eventually win the race. To make matters worse, some Web3 projects are not “open” at all. The founder of RabbitHole once said in an interview that to retain users, the reputation certificates issued by many communities can only be used internally, and even community members receive no reputation proof.
Future trends of Web3 reputation
Although projects face many difficulties in developing Web3 reputation systems, the problems we mentioned will eventually be solved. For instance, the flywheel effect of Web3 will easily resolve the Chicken-and-Egg dilemma; with the right incentive, millennials and members of Generation Z will become interested in Web3; projects that are not open-minded will be changed or eliminated as the Web3 mainstream pursues openness.
Both privacy-preserving technologies such as zero-knowledge proofs and complex algorithms that include machine learning will be more extensively adopted by Web3 reputation systems. The adoption of the former protects users’ privacy. With privacy-preserving technologies, users will be more willing to authorize access to their Web2 or even real-world data, and projects will be able to unlock more application scenarios. The use of the latter will help projects design more insightful reputation/credentials, which will enable accurate target matching.
In addition, we believe that each segment will have its high-consensus reputation certificates, which will function just like professional certificates in traditional sectors. Different from traditional certificates, these Web3 certificates do not have to be licensed and authorized by centralized institutions. Such vertical segments are not limited to DeFi, NFTs, and games, which are fields familiar to existing Web3 residents but may also include traditional sectors. For example, proponents of decentralized science (DeSci) are calling for replacing the h-index with a reputation certificate based on blockchain technologies. To them, the h-index only measures the number of published papers and important awards and cannot offer any comprehensive and fair evaluation of the contributions of scientists. Therefore, they advocate a verifiable on-chain reputation system for scientists, which can be implemented as one or multiple NFTs or point tokens. In addition, such a system will account for a comprehensive range of assessment factors, which include valuable activities such as peer review, training/teaching, and data sharing, in addition to published papers and awards.
As on-chain reputation, credentials, or medals gain popularity, DAOs or Web3 organizations may adopt a new paradigm of human resource management. Flat organizations have adopted amoeba and holacracy as their management model, both of which weaken the boundaries between traditional departments. In particular, holacracy completely eliminates the concept of hierarchies and job titles and replaces them with circles and roles. To be more specific, each employee can play multiple roles, which means that the duties of an employee may span different circles. This resembles the prototype of DAOs. Among organizations that adopted holacracy, Zappos, a US retail e-commerce platform, offers employees different badges based on their roles and skills, including those that fall outside the scope of work. These badges serve as major references for salary adjustment, and employees can acquire badges, which come with the corresponding salaries, according to their career interests. However, Zappos’s badge system is only influential within the firm, and the approach seems too unorthodox for other companies. Holacracy, which is difficult to implement in the old world where job titles are more authoritative, may boom in Web3, and we look forward to the day it thrives.
Finally
Reputation systems help Web3 foster its flywheel effect, which is crucial for the development of the Web3 ecosystem. As a Web3 builder offering capital services, ViaBTC Capital is keenly aware of the difficulties facing project teams as they seek growth and formulate go-to-market strategies during their infancy. To them, the accurate and low-cost identification of stakeholders (users, governor, and developers) represents a demanding task. Therefore, we are also looking for investment opportunities in the field of Web3 reputation systems to build the Web3 ecosystem and expand our portfolio. Feel free to contact us at [email protected] if you are developing a Web3 reputation system and are looking for investment and partnership.
Reference:
1.https://future.com/reputation-based-systems/
2.https://mirror.xyz/0x5Eba828AB4999825D8416D7EAd9563b64FD90276/jBKtY8DJv2TN6AqA6SsZrM8qJkC2ReDDJaSKPu1QLWI
3.https://kermankohli.substack.com/p/web3-reputation-market-map
4.https://blog.csdn.net/myan/article/details/126376974
5.https://seedclub.libsyn.com/ep-8-the-rabbit-hole-that-is-nouns-dao-brian-flynn
6.https://semaphore.appliedzkp.org/docs/introduction